Loretta Rush wins praise, makes history as new chief justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Loretta Rush had dinner with friends awhile back in her hometown of Lafayette, but the upcoming chief justice selection didn’t come up. Robert Reiling recalls a nice time talking about family.

“I’m sure in Indianapolis she’s Chief Justice Rush,” Reiling said. “In Lafayette, she’s Loretta to everyone.”

Rush-2-15col.jpg Justice Loretta Rush shakes hands with Brent Dickson, chief justice and chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission, upon arriving for her interview Aug. 6. The JNC selected Rush to succeed Dickson, making her Indiana’s first female chief justice. (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

So it wasn’t too unusual that friends and members of the local bar had festooned Rush’s home with red, white and blue balloons when she arrived the evening of Aug. 6 after being named Indiana’s first female chief justice. “We just sat and enjoyed each other,” Rush said.

Being the first female chief justice is a distinction she hopes one day might not be remarkable, she said after her selection by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission.

“It was thrilling,” Rush said of her selection. “I have such respect for the court as an institution.”

For folks back in Lafayette, the choice came as no surprise. They said Rush’s personality and professionalism make her a natural choice.

“I’m sure she made a good impression,” said Reiling, a partner in Reiling Teder & Schrier LLC. He speaks from experience, having been involved in hiring Rush for her first legal job in 1982 at the firm where current Chief Justice Brent Dickson practiced at the time.

Reiling recalled that as a young lawyer, Rush quickly established herself and earned the respect of colleagues and judges for her skills in the courtroom. “As lawyers, sometimes you get put on the spot, and she was always able to respond effectively.

“She’s a very critical thinker, and she’s never been indecisive about things, and I think that’s one of the strengths she will bring to the position.”

William Emerick, an attorney at Stuart & Branigin LLP in Lafayette, has known Rush more than 25 years. “We knew she had the background, training, experience and good judgment to fill the shoes of Chief Justice Dickson,” he said.

“We were all excited for her when she got appointed to the Supreme Court and we’re even more excited that she’s been appointed chief justice,” said Emerick, who is also vice president of the Tippecanoe County Bar Association.

“She was always a great advocate for her clients and was always very easy to work with” as an attorney, he said, recalling cases he tried against her. As a judge, Emerick believes Rush’s sincere interest in solving problems is clear.

“I think it’s her genuineness that truly comes across. She’s just a real person,” he said.

Rush said it sunk in for her that she would be the next chief when the justices gathered the morning after her selection for their weekly Thursday conference. She realized she’d soon be sitting where Dickson sits. Dickson plans to resign as chief but remain on the court, but no official date had been set at IL deadline.

Convincing the commission

By virtue of reverse tenure on the court, Rush was the first candidate the commission interviewed, and she promptly talked about the need for a chief justice to lead by example as “the face of the court.”

The chief justice needs to “sort of be the role model and the pillar of collegiality and civility,” she said, and trial courts and attorneys around the state “look to the Supreme Court and particularly the chief for the standard.”

She said, “It’s important that we look at the chief as sort of a chairman of the board,” though she would make sure in that role to surround herself with a strong managerial team. “The chief needs to be willing to listen and to delegate responsibilities.”

Rush told the commission members the court could make improvements by looking at best practices nationally and doing more to improve and expedite the handling of civil dockets, which she said have increasingly languished, not just in Indiana but nationwide. Meanwhile, she said courts will continue to be challenged by fiscal restraints.

The aspect of serving as chief that Rush said she would find most satisfying would be the people she works with, including the trial courts and bar. She said that when she ran for the bench in Tippecanoe County, she spent time getting to know the bench and bar.

“I closed my practice down three months early to travel the state and find out what was working,” she said.

Commission member John Ulmer asked Rush about maintaining a home-life balance when raising young children – a question that wasn’t asked of male justices. “I just really became a really good time manager,” she said. The balance is made easier because of her family, she explained. “They believe in the mission of what we do.”

The verdict

Deliberating behind closed doors, the commission took about an hour to choose Rush.

“I think there was a leaning toward her, but there also were some leanings toward some others,” said non-attorney commission member Jean Northenor of Warsaw. “It took some time to talk it through.”

But those talks didn’t need to involve the opinion of Dickson, who said after Rush’s selection, “I had colleagues that made that decision for me.”

“I think her qualifications were overwhelming,” Northenor said of Rush. “It just seemed to me that everyone on the commission, all six of us, felt very strongly about her qualifications and her demeanor.

“She has a presence about her that when she walked in that room, you know she’s there. Personally, I thought that was important for a chief justice, and that’s not taking anything away from any of the others,” she said. “We could have chosen any one of those four and it wouldn’t have been a mistake. She just came out on top.”

Northenor, who with Ulmer were the only commission members remaining from the group that chose Rush as a justice in 2012, said she believes Rush will continue what she called a magnificent tenure by Dickson.

“When I left, I felt good about the decision,” Northenor said. “The way (the justices) all get along so wonderfully I’m sure will continue under her leadership.”

The choice was praised by Gov. Mike Pence, Attorney General Greg Zoeller and former Justice Frank Sullivan, Rush’s predecessor on the court, among others. Pence noted the history-making nature of the decision and said, “With her extensive legal experience, proven character and commitment to public service, I am confident that Chief Justice Rush will serve our judiciary and our state with distinction.”

Rush told the commission Dickson had set a standard for inclusiveness during his time as chief, one she hopes to foster. “There’s more institutional integrity when you have consensus.”

That was a theme each of the justices stressed during their interviews before the commission, with several noting the court’s reputation of collegiality cultivated under Dickson and before him, Chief Justice Randall Shepard, whose 27-year tenure is the longest in Indiana history.

What’s ahead

Rush said after her selection that she would be taking some time to better learn the job before laying out some of her visions for the future. She’ll also look to what she called a strong group of judicial leaders around the state to help, and to the leadership and institutional knowledge of Dickson and longtime justice Robert Rucker for guidance.

“A strategic plan will be developed,” she said, “with a lot of input. But it will take time.”

Shepard, now a visiting professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said Rush has “proven in short order a very able contributor in the court’s casework,” and as important, she’s shown the leadership capabilities to carry out functions of the court that the public and even sometimes lawyers don’t see, such as guiding improvements in trial court operations.

“She was, as a trial court judge, very committed to improvements in the trial court processes and to upgrading educational opportunities and collaborating,” Shepard said. “I think there’s room for great optimism about her leadership in this growing part of the Supreme Court’s work.”

Another aspect of the job Shepard said can be tricky is serving as first among equals.

“One of the chief’s roles is to build the right atmosphere in which this group of very independent-minded five members can work effectively with each other,” he said. “We notice it immediately when they aren’t.

“A very positive feature of the last decade or two has been the high level of respect and working relationships” on the court, Shepard said.

“There’s every bit of reason to be confident that’s something she’ll build on,” he said. “It’s easy to overlook, but it makes a tremendous difference.

What the other justices said

Mark Massa


In his interview with the Judicial Nominating Commission, Justice Mark Massa said he believes humility is the most important attribute for a chief justice, and that’s a trait he looked for as counsel to former Gov. Mitch Daniels in vetting appointees for judges from small claims courts to the Court of Appeals.

“I think judges with humility are less likely to overreach,” Massa said, which may provoke attacks and threats on judicial independence.

“I would say the next chief justice will have enormous shoes to fill,” he said, praising Brent Dickson’s tenure as well as that of former Chief Justice Randall Shepard, for whom he served as a law clerk.

Massa said Dickson is more inclusive during conferences with the justices than was Shepard. “That’s been a worthy model and certainly one I would emulate.”

“Over the last 30 years not only has this court significantly increased the quality of work, decision making and coherence of its jurisprudence,” Massa said, justices “also spent a considerable amount of time and energy on things that make the court system work better.”

Massa also said chief justice is a diplomatic and ceremonial position that requires “collaboration with and sometimes persuasion of the other branches of government.”

Acknowledging that his judicial philosophy skews conservative, Massa referred to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who designed a system that ensured no one had too much power.

“I believe in the separation of powers the way I believe in gravity.”

Steven David


Justice Steven David mixed a bit of self-deprecating humor with an appeal to the JNC that he would bring passion and vision to the job if selected chief.

As he concluded answering a question about the qualities a chief needs, he got a laugh when he looked across the table at Dickson and said, “The chief knows I could go on and on.”

“What you are doing is selecting more than just a chief justice,” he told the commission. “I think you are selecting someone to serve as the chief trustee for justice in Indiana, and that’s significant.”

David said the role calls for someone who possesses the ability to bring people together, leadership skills, a good body of work to refer to, and someone who is trustworthy. “I think the person has to have patience, and they also have to have tenacity.”

At the same time, he acknowledged the justices were looking forward to the conclusion of the succession process that had been tough. “They’re my brothers and my sister,” he said.

Asked about possible improvements he would make as chief, David said he would do a better job of listening to trial courts and lawyers, taking their input on how to provide a more effective and efficient court system. He said the court is on that path, looking at reforms and new ideas.

“I will do my best to make sure the atmosphere is one of openness.”

Robert Rucker

Rucker-8-1col.jpg Rucker

The final justice to appear before the commission, Robert Rucker said three qualities are needed in a chief justice – the ability to be a collaborator, a consensus-builder and a good communicator.

He commended Dickson for sharing responsibilities that are given by statute to the chief justice. “We have buy-in, and we have acceptance for those things,” Rucker said. “This is an institution, it’s not a one-man show, and I would treat it that way.”

Rucker said it’s also important the chief be able to communicate the mission of the court and inspire respect and confidence for the bench. “The chief justice is the public face of this third branch of government.”

He said part of Dickson’s legacy is likely to be insistence on civility in the courtroom and access to justice for unrepresented litigants. Rucker told the commission that if selected chief, he would pursue a legacy of ensuring non-English speakers and those of limited proficiency as well as those who are deaf or cannot be heard, have access to justice and qualified interpreters.

Rucker also said his life story helps him maintain a common touch. His father worked in the steel mills and factories of Lake County while his mother worked at home raising a family. Rucker went to public schools and served his country in Vietnam before he pursued a legal career.

“Nobody’s going to accuse Bob Rucker of living in an ivory tower,” he said. “I think I’ve got a life that allows me to cross paths with lots of different people and lots of different circumstances.”


  • Repulsive
    I find the media ignoring Rush's participation in Brewington v State to be repulsive. Loretta Rush sat on the Juvenile Justice Improvement committee with one of the victims of the case, while she was writing the opinion for the case. If this was a situation where a judge served on a board of directors of a bank with a victim or litigant in a criminal or civil trial, no one would find it proper for the judge to preside over the case; especially if the judge and the victim served on the board together for at least 6 years. This doesn't even take into account how Justice Rush claimed Brewington had a history of violence toward Judge Humphrey, her fellow committee member of 6+ years. There is no record or mention of violence in the trial record or at the appellate level; only in Rush's opinion. Looking at the situation objectively, how could an individual, with no criminal record, have a "history" of violence against a judge without any arrests or without anyone attempting to obtain a restraining order? If someone committed just one act of violence against a judge it would most likely be a federal case but Brewington was never arrest for violence because Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop testified that no violence ever occurred. Worst of all Justice Rush wrote that a defendant may waive their rights to constitutional protections that prohibit unconstitutional prosecutions by inviting the error, by assuming any non-objection to the unconstitutional prosecution was trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel. Rush went through the record of the case and picked out partial statements she believed to be threats and used them to support her written decision. On the surface this appears to be appropriate except if the Supreme Court is the finder of what is considered threatening then, by default, the defendant was deprived his 6th amendment right to know which of his actions brought forth the charges against him. The United States court system doesn’t allow a prosecutor to admit tens or hundreds of thousands of word into a court record so the high courts can establish the existence of any possible threats. If this were true, a prosecutor could indict Stephen King, admit all of his horror novels, and allow a higher court to pour through hundreds of thousands of pages in search of a few statements that the court deems to be threatening and then justify the “threatening” nature of the statements by claiming Stephen King was dangerous because he kept writing about horrific situations; all the while barring King from building a defense against the alleged threats because the threats were not defined until after trial. This is exactly what happened in Brewington; where even the appellate court did not establish Brewington’s statements were threats to safety but rather ruled Brewington’s statements, while possibly true, frightened the alleged “victims,” thus satisfying the Appellate Court’s bar for intimidating statements. This fails to take the common sense factor into account that Brewington was convicted of effectively terrorizing the alleged victims for as long as 3.5 years yet no one attempted to obtain a restraining order and Brewington was never held in contempt of court in his divorce proceedings. If Brewington’s threats were clear and worthy of prosecution then the threats were definitely grounds for seeking protective orders. As for the threat of arson, the word does not appear in the grand jury transcripts nor the trial record and Humphrey never expressed any fear nor did he mention that he believed Brewington’s statement about being a pyromaniac was directed toward Humphrey and his family. I have no idea why Loretta Rush receives a free pass on this but the citizens of Indiana should be wary of their constitutional rights before the gavel of the newly appointed Chief Justice, Loretta H. Rush.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

    2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

    3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

    4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

    5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: